PURPOSE: We conducted a psychosocial followup of living kidney donors from 1983 to 1995. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A new questionnaire about donor satisfaction and the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey, a standardized measure of health related quality of life, were completed by 167 donors (67% response rate). RESULTS: Of respondents 90% would make the same choice again and 83% would strongly encourage others to donate. However, 15% of respondents believed that donating had impacted negatively on their health and 23% reported negative financial consequences. Respondent health related quality of life was not impaired. The strongest correlates of donor dissatisfaction included a conflicted initial relationship with the recipient, believing that information given preoperatively had been inadequate and perceived damage to health or finances. CONCLUSIONS: Only a minority of living kidney donors suffer psychosocial morbidity. Better psychological preparation for surgery and more consistent followup could decrease negative outcomes further.
PURPOSE: We conducted a psychosocial followup of living kidney donors from 1983 to 1995. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A new questionnaire about donor satisfaction and the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey, a standardized measure of health related quality of life, were completed by 167 donors (67% response rate). RESULTS: Of respondents 90% would make the same choice again and 83% would strongly encourage others to donate. However, 15% of respondents believed that donating had impacted negatively on their health and 23% reported negative financial consequences. Respondent health related quality of life was not impaired. The strongest correlates of donor dissatisfaction included a conflicted initial relationship with the recipient, believing that information given preoperatively had been inadequate and perceived damage to health or finances. CONCLUSIONS: Only a minority of living kidney donors suffer psychosocial morbidity. Better psychological preparation for surgery and more consistent followup could decrease negative outcomes further.
Authors: Evangelos M Mazaris; Jeremy S Crane; Anthony Nu Warrens; Glenn Smith; Paris Tekkis; Vassilios E Papalois Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2011-05-26 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Cheryl L Jacobs; Cynthia R Gross; Emily E Messersmith; Barry A Hong; Brenda W Gillespie; Peg Hill-Callahan; Sandra J Taler; Sheila G Jowsey; Tim J Beebe; Arthur J Matas; Jonah Odim; Hassan N Ibrahim Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-10-13 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: B J Boyarsky; A B Massie; J L Alejo; K J Van Arendonk; S Wildonger; J M Garonzik-Wang; R A Montgomery; N A Deshpande; A D Muzaale; D L Segev Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2014-07-16 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: S G Jowsey; C Jacobs; C R Gross; B A Hong; E E Messersmith; B W Gillespie; T J Beebe; C Kew; A Matas; R D Yusen; M Hill-Callahan; J Odim; S J Taler Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Ami M Parekh; Elisa J Gordon; Amit X Garg; Amy D Waterman; Sanjay Kulkarni; Chirag R Parikh Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2008-07-03 Impact factor: 5.992